Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment discussing the evidentiary value of the dying declarations in case there are multiple dying declarations.  
• This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench comprising of Justice RC Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju. 

Facts  

• The deceased (Janak Kumari) in this case died an unnatural death on 8th March 1982 after sustaining injuries on 7th March 1982. 
• Six years before the incident she was married and also had a female child of about 5 years. 
• The deceased had filed a complaint under Section 385 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) on 14th November 1980 against the accused persons (husband, mother of the husband and the sister of the husband). 
• On 7th March 1982, at around 7:20 a.m., accused Om Prakash informed the police control room that his wife, Janak Kumari, had set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil. 
• Sub Inspector Badri Nath (PW 19) directed the PCR van to the incident location and informed P.S. Pahar Ganj, where the incident was recorded in Roznamcha as Exhibit PW 14/E. 
• Sub Inspector Ramesh Chand Garg (PW 21) was assigned for necessary action, and ASI Shiv Charan (PW 5) along with the PCR van reached the accused's residence. 
• Dying Declarations: 
  • First Declaration: Made by Janak Kumari to ASI Shiv Charan (PW 5) on the way to the hospital. 
  • Second Declaration: Made to Dr. C.M. Khanijau (PW 9) at the hospital and recorded as Exhibit PW 9/A. 
  • Third Declaration: Recorded by SI Ramesh Chand Garg (PW 21) between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. as Exhibit PW 21/A. 
  • Fourth Declaration: Recorded by Ajit Shrivastava, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (PW 16), between 1:30 and 1:45 p.m. as Exhibit PW 16/A. 
  • Fifth Declaration: Made to her brother, Kishan Lal (PW 3), at around 5:30 p.m. 
• The charges were framed against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC but they pleaded not guilty. 
• On 31st January 1985 the accused were acquitted of all the charges by the Additional Sessions Judge. 
• While the State Government did not file appeal against the acquittal, a Special Leave Petition was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) before the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the accused persons should be convicted on the basis of the dying declarations and other evidence on record?  

Observations 

• Principle Behind Dying Declaration: 
  • The principle of dying declaration is based on the maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire which means that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. 
  • In the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of AP (1993) the Court held that if the Court is satisfied that dying declaration is true and free from embellishments such dying declaration can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. 
  •  The admissibility of dying declaration is based on the principle of necessity. 
  • In case a dying declaration suffers from infirmities the Court may as a rule look for corroboration and the infirmities as such so as to prick the conscience of the Court, the Court may refuse to accept it as a basis of conviction. 
• Evaluation of Dying Declaration: 
  • The Associate Professor who conducted the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased testified that the body of Janak Kumari suffered from 85% burn injuries. 
  • The first dying declaration: 
    • PW5 Shiv Charan, ASI, claimed that the victim, Janak Kumari, accused her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of burning her, but he failed to record this information in the PCR van roznamcha or inform the Police Control Room, raising doubts about the authenticity of his testimony. 
    • Shiv Charan admitted during cross-examination that he did not inform the investigating officer about the victim’s alleged statement implicating the accused when his statement was recorded, further undermining his credibility. 
    • The alleged dying declaration implicating the accused was not corroborated by other evidence or recorded in the rukka (incident report). As a result, the court deemed the first dying declaration unreliable and discarded it. 
  • The second dying declaration 
    • The Court held that it would be a misadventure to call such a statement as dying declaration. 
    • Dr. C.N. Khanijau did not receive or record any direct statement or dying declaration from the victim, Janak Kumari. 
    • The claim that Janak Kumari was strangulated with a rope before being set on fire appears to have been misleading, as no corroborative evidence or marks consistent with strangulation were found during the autopsy performed by Dr. B.N. Reddy. 
  • The third dying declaration 
    • Ramesh Chand, SI, recorded a detailed statement (Exhibit PW21/A) from Janak Kumari, allegedly signed by her, despite there being no independent verification from a doctor to confirm her physical and mental fitness at the time of the statement. 
    • Medical evidence revealed that Janak Kumari had 85% deep burns, including on her neck, mouth, lips, and hands, making it highly doubtful that she could provide a detailed statement or sign it while under heavy sedation and in a deteriorating condition. 
    • Ramesh Chand admitted that neighbors and persons present at the scene did not implicate the accused, and no independent witnesses supported the claim that Janak Kumari was set on fire by her husband, mother-in-law, or sister-in-law. 
    • Thus, this dying declaration was also rejected. 
  • The fourth dying declaration 
    • The dying declaration recorded by Ajit Shrivastava (Exhibit PW16/A) was detailed and narrative, similar to the earlier statement recorded by Sub Inspector Ramesh Chand. 
    • It included a claim by the victim that the statement was made in full consciousness, but it lacked any endorsement by medical professionals verifying her mental or physical condition. 
    • The Court expressed grave doubts about whether Janak Kumari was in a fit state to make or sign any statements, especially since her condition was deteriorating throughout the day. 
  • The fifth dying declaration 
    • Kishan Lal, the brother of the deceased Janak Kumari, claimed to have reached the hospital around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. after learning of the incident. 
    • Kishan Lal admitted that he did not contact or inform the police about what Janak Kumari had allegedly told him, even though it would have been natural for him to do so. 
    • The Court found Kishan Lal’s failure to report the incident to the police damaging to his reliability and the credibility of his testimony regarding the alleged dying declaration. 
    • The Court expressed grave doubts about whether Janak Kumari was in a physical condition to speak or make a statement to Kishan Lal at 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., given her deteriorating health. 
• Thus, the Court held that none of the five dying declarations are worthy of credence due to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. 
• Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment of acquittal. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court discussing the evidentiary value of the dying declaration when there are multiple dying declarations.  
• The Court reiterated the well-established rule that it must be proved that the person making the dying declaration made the same when he was in a fit state of mind.  
• Thus, the Court held that once a dying declaration passes the careful scrutiny of the Courts it becomes an important and a reliable piece of evidence. 

[Original Judgment]